The Supreme Court on May 3 orally observed that it may consider the question of granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case owing to the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta made this observation after noting that the case may take time to conclude as it covers various issues. "We are not saying anything today. But we may ask. Please be prepared on Tuesday,” Justice Khanna told ASG Raju.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who appeared for the ED, said "This will be blown up now." The bench, however, clarified that they were not saying either way, and asked lawyers for both the sides not to assume anything.
The bench also asked both the sides to be prepared on whether Kejriwal can sign papers while in custody owing to the position he holds. "Because of the position you (Kejriwal) hold, whether you should be signing any files?"
The hearing will now continue on May 7. The bench was hearing Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case.
During the course of hearing today, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal argued that ED need not have arrested Kejriwal on March 21 the way the did as there have been no changes to circumstances since Manish Sisodia's case.
Singhvi also argued that the even if Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as a political party is accused of violating the law, Kejriwal cannot be arrested. The court however noted that if AAP was viewed as a person under law, then the persons responsible for its actions could be arrested.
The bench asked ASG Raju, if an investigating agency is required to disclose all material it has collected against an accused. The ASG responded stating that it would not be practical to expect an agency to record all material collected during a probe, as it may run to thousands of pages. Raju further stated that an officer can make an arrest based on incriminating material.
The bench queried Raju about the higher threshold for arrest of a person under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, when compared to other laws. The bench further asked if 'reasons to believe' that a person who is arrested was involved in an offence is generally viewed as something beyond mere suspicion.
Raju told the court that there was material against Kejriwal that led to his arrest and it was not based just on 'reason to believe'. Raju furthermore contended that Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest has been rejected before and hence 'judicial minds' were also applied to the case.
On April 15, the SC refused to grant any immediate relief to Kejriwal. The court, however, issued notice to ED and asked it respond to the AAP chief’s petition by April 24. The case is likely to be heard in the week beginning April 29.
Kejriwal moved the court against the Delhi High Court order that upheld his arrest. The high court said the material collected by the ED showed the chief minister was actively involved in the use of proceeds of crime.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
